What is ‘Theory’ in Grounded Theory?

Kara L. Vander Linden, Institute for Research and Theory Methodologies Abstract Theory is often discussed in relation to research. However, despite its frequent reference, there is a lack of consensus on what theory is. This article briefly discusses some views of theory within sociology and the lack of consensus over what constitutes theory. This lack of consensus makes it important that grounded theorists not only explain what is meant by a theory being grounded in data but also what is meant by theory in grounded theory. Keywords: theory, grounded theory, definitions, debate Introduction As a grounded theorist, I have often explained the “grounded” aspect of grounded theory, that the theory developed is grounded in data. However, more recently I have found myself exploring and explaining “what is theory?” as I have interacted with students and other faculty. As a research instructor, I teach about the role of theory in research, discussing the use of theory as a theoretical framework in qualitative studies, as the source of hypotheses to test in quantitative studies, and as the product of research when using the grounded theory method. However, Sandberg and Alvesson (2021) noted, “Although the word ‘theory’ is omnipresent in research texts, it is rarely defined precisely and systematically” (p. 488). As I have talked with other faculty, I have realized that we are not always talking about the same thing when we discuss theory. Similarly, many journals require researchers to connect their research to theory, and this requirement frequently appears in peer reviewers’ feedback. These comments assume that there is a universally agreed-upon understanding of what theory is. However, as this article will demonstrate, there is not one universally agreed-upon understanding of what theory is; thus, it is important to also explain what we mean by theory as grounded theorists. What is “Theory”? Within academic and scholarly literature, there are often many different perspectives and opinions, and such is the case with the term “theory.” The question “what is theory?” may seem simple at first, especially if you turn to dictionary definitions. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines theory as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.” In their brief literature review on how theory literature defines theory, Sandberg and Alvesson (2021) found that the most common and critical element discussed within the literature is that theory explains, which aligns with the dictionary definitions. Despite this common and critical element of theory, there is still much debate about what theory is within and across academic fields and disciplines. Authors in various fields have written articles to tackle this question and discovered that the meaning of theory varies depending on the context in which it is used and how it is used (Abend, 2008; Gelso, 2006; Gregor, 2006; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021; Thomas, 1997). While some scholars claimed the definition of theory is ambiguous, others believed it is too narrowly conceived. Even within a single academic field, there is often a lack of consensus about what theory is. Since grounded theory emerged from the field of sociology, a need exists to look at what theory is according to scholars from within sociology. Turner (1991) explained what theory is and some different perspectives on theory as follows: Theory is a ‘story’ about how and why events in the universe occur. Sociological theory thus seeks to explain how and why humans behave,...

Becoming Independent: The Life-Changing Experiences of GT Researchers in China...

Y. Chen, Nanjing Normal University Y. Feng, China University of Political Science and Law Y. Wang, Fujian Medical University F. Fei, Grounded Theory Institute Abstract The popularisation of Glaser’s grounded theory (GT) methodology in China over the past two decades or so has seen some faithful use of classic (Glaserian) GT in several areas (i.e. psychology, culture of rule of law, and nursing) amid the overall misuse and abuse of the methodology.   And arising from these endeavours are some life-changing experiences of GT researchers leading towards their academic independence. These individual experiences cover three intertwining aspects, namely inspiration and empowerment of Glaser and his methodology, developing a critical mind, and growth in personal character. Keywords: grounded theory, Glaser, China Introduction Over the past two decades or so, Glaser’s grounded theory (GT) methodology has been hugely popularised in China. Glaser’s books are now available in the National Library of China. And Glaser’s virtual participation in seminars and other types of events that took place  in China helped the GT researchers better appreciate the methodology and Glaser’s own perspective on any derailment of the methodology originated by himself. Having said that, the overall GT research landscape in China is not vastly different from elsewhere in the world. It is observed that the term “grounded theory” has been generally misused. The study of the original texts of the GT methodology (Glaser &  Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978) is, to a great extent, disregarded. And ironically, what has emerged from China are some self-proclaimed “innovations” including the localisation of GT; thus, the extreme distortion of the original GT methodology (e.g., Chen, 2015; Chen & Wang, 2020; Jia & Heng, 2016, 2020), let alone widespread plagiarism and academic misconduct (e.g., Chen & Wang, 2020; Jia & Heng, 2016, 2020; Wu & Li, 2020) as we have discovered here. This essay outlines the life-changing experiences of some Chinese GT researchers and the journey towards academic independence. In particular, it highlights the following three intertwining aspects of the experiences arising from our own GT research endeavours: inspiration and empowerment of Glaser and his methodology, developing a critical mind, and growth in personal character. Inspiration and Empowerment of Glaser and His Methodology Glaser’s methodology, per se, has been an immense source of inspiration for those who have been minus-mentored (Glaser, 1998) at their own research institutions. Chen (2020), once a minus-mentored doctoral candidate thinking of quitting her           doctoral programme, stated that Glaser himself, his methodological ideas and experiences are highly critical to the most challenging part of her life, i.e., her doctoral study (personal communications, 18 January, 2022). Fei (2008) shared this view when reflecting upon his experience of being seriously challenged by not having a clearly-defined research problem at the outset of his doctoral project. Similarly, Feng (2022) appreciated Glaser’s life-long work in bringing us such a unique methodology…[and] unceasing academic efforts on GT . . . The words you have written for GT n[ovice] researchers deeply inspired me and helped me complete my paper in two years, which I would never forget in my life.(personal communications，18 January, 2022) One of the common challenges that classic (Glaserian) GT researchers often have to address is convincing others that Glaser’s GT is perfectly do-able, despite the fact that their colleagues may  have a preference towards other methods with the label “GT” on them. In order to overcome this particular challenge that some of us have encountered, Glaser has kindly supported the novice researchers by producing letters of endorsement to,...

Coding in Classic Grounded Theory: I’ve Done an Interview; Now What?...

Barry Chametzky, USA Abstract Without a doubt, many graduate students—especially those who are do not have a mentor skilled in the classic grounded theory design—are concerned about doing studies or dissertations using the classic grounded theory design for fear of doing it incorrectly.  While there is extant literature in the field of classic grounded theory, a clear and simple how-to does not exist.  The purpose of this paper is to give novice researchers interested in the classic grounded theory design a foothold in how to do one aspect of classic grounded theory analysis: coding.  The explanation offered in this paper is based in theory and supported with practical examples. Keywords: classic grounded theory, coding Introduction Congratulations on conducting your first interview for your dissertation using classic grounded theory.  Now the fun and, no doubt, confusion truly begin.  As you know, several theorists (Glaser, 1978; Mezirow, 1978) spoke about the educational power and importance of confusion.  Now is the time when you get to experience this “epistemological anarchy” (Glaser, 2005, p. 43).  Despite what Glaser (1998) said, classic grounded theory is complicated for novice researchers.  Yet, in order to ease possible frustrations, I will discuss what codes are and are not, different types of codes, and the overall process coding from a theoretical and practical perspective.  In this manner, the reader will be able to see how theory and practice come together. Significance of this research Without a doubt, many graduate (masters and doctoral) students—especially those who do not have a mentor skilled in the classic grounded theory design (Glaser, 1998)—are concerned about doing studies or dissertations using the classic grounded theory design for fear of doing them incorrectly.  While there is extant literature in the field of classic grounded theory, a clear and simple how-to does not exist.  Because the process of acculturation, so to speak, into the classic grounded theory realm takes time and requires novice researchers to ask numerous questions, this paper will be extremely valuable to them as it allows any minus mentored (Glaser, 1998) researcher to understand the research design more easily.  Tangentially, this research will help allay some fears of novice researchers; with lowered fears and lowered affective filters (Chametzky, 2014), these researchers would be able to conduct their research more expeditiously. What is classic grounded theory? According to one of the founders of classic grounded theory, Glaser (2009), this research design is a “simple procedural method formulated to generate substantive, conceptual theory” (p. 72).  While no person would ever doubt Glaser, it might be more useful to novice researchers to elaborate on (and clarify) what he said.  Grounded theory is a research design in which a researcher explains the behaviors of participants vis-à-vis their main concern.  The explanation, derived solely and exclusively from the (qualitative or quantitative) data, takes the ultimate form of a theory that explains the behaviors.  While the theory may be unique to the particular group of people, called the substantive area, because the concepts are abstract of “time, place, and people” ” (Glaser, 2001, p. 10), a highly developed, conceptualized theory is created. The term “classic” comes from the fact that Glaser and Strauss (1967) were the first two theorists to develop this research design.  Subsequent to Glaser and Strauss in 1967, numerous other researchers have developed what they described as other types of grounded theory designs.  In this paper, however, the researcher is discussing solely the (pure) classic grounded theory design. What are codes? Let us begin this...

When and How to Use Extant Literature in Classic Grounded Theory...

Alvita K. Nathaniel, PhD, APRN, BC, FAANP Professor Emerita, West Virginia University Abstract Glaser and Strauss (1967) sprinkled suggestions about the use of the literature throughout their seminal work as did Glaser in subsequent years. They, however, did not lay out a clear and structured overview of how to use the literature. The aim of this paper is to weave together the recommendations from classic grounded theory originators and to describe how, why, and when to review the literature and which literature to review. The paper includes a section debunking the no literature myth followed by descriptions of the three phases of the classic grounded theory literature review—the introduction phase, the integration phase, and the disposition phase. The three phases work together to substantiate, confirm, and enhance an emerging grounded theory and situate it within the existing body of knowledge. Keywords: literature review, extant literature, grounded theory, classic grounded theory. Introduction This paper lays out a systematic approach to the literature review that is consistent with the classic grounded theory method as established by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and further by Glaser in subsequent publications. Their ideas about the pre-investigation literature review adhere to the foundational assumptions of the classic grounded theory method including discovery, emergence, and a foundation based upon participants’ perspectives. Through sentences and short paragraphs, Glaser and Strauss sprinkled suggestions about the use of the literature throughout their seminal work, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967), as did Glaser in subsequent years. They, however, did not articulate a complete and structured overview of how to use the literature. Much has been written in intervening years, mostly focusing on misunderstandings. Few have attempted to piece together Glaser and Strauss’ advice into a cohesive whole. Even the most adamant proponents of classic grounded theory have struggled to rectify Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) suggestions about the literature review with the exigencies of authoritarian social structures that have strict rules for reviewing the literature. This paper explains how a classic grounded theory literature review can be accomplished, even within strict institutional standards. The aim of this paper is to weave together the classic grounded theory originators’ advice and describe what, how, why, and when to review the literature. Recommendations in this paper derive from original sources of classic grounded theory and other proponents of the method but also interweave complementary, sometimes surprising, views expressed by authors of remodeled versions of grounded theory and also advice from general research methods literature. The grounded theory literature review is defined for this paper as the systematic selection, interpretation, and review of published and unpublished material on a particular topic. The literature may include empirical data, research findings, ideas, theories, recordings, and other collections and may include the work of researchers, scholars, and theorists along with other historic and current grounded sources. A literature review can also include conceptual and opinion pieces that provide insight into others’ thinking about a topic (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As you read further, you will see that the appropriate grounded theory literature review is intended to be focused, deliberate, and useful. The preliminary grounded theory literature review does not focus on concepts from a fixed research question, as is customary in quantitative research, because grounded theory research questions begin very broad and evolve as data are collected and analyzed. As Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggest, this can be uncomfortable for researchers since it challenges the accepted approaches of some faculty, ethics committees, and funding sources...

Transcending Inequality: A Classic Grounded Theory of Filipino Factory Workers in Taiwan...

Peter C. Sun, University of Washington Abstract The purpose of this research is to develop a classic grounded theory of the main concern of Filipino factory workers in Taiwan and the latent pattern of behavior that accounts for its continual resolution. Nine participants were interviewed and the data were analyzed using the constant comparative method of analysis. The theory that emerged from this study was transcending inequality, which explains how individuals resolve inequality via three overlapping patterns of behavior: coping, bonding, and serving. These behaviors represent a constellation of individual, cultural, social, and spiritual resources. The findings have implications for three areas of practice and policy: (a) local and transnational community life, (b) religious and spiritual practices, and (c) the strength-based approach. Keywords: Migrant worker, inequality, classic grounded theory Introduction Taiwan’s population of migrant workers has risen dramatically since the establishment of a formal guest worker program in 1991 (Lu, 2000). By the end of 2012, Taiwan had 445,579 migrant workers, predominantly from Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. More than half the migrant workers were employed in manufacturing industries, with the rest being primarily domestic workers (Council of Labor Affairs, 2012). Rapid economic growth, industrialization, and rising labor costs (Tierney, 2007), as well as social changes such as growth in women’s employment, declining fertility rates, and changing job attitudes, especially the aversion to so-called 3D (dirty, dangerous, and demanding) occupations, have increased the demand for foreign labor (Lan, 2000a). Numerous studies have established migrant workers as a vulnerable and oppressed population. In 2011, as many as 42.4% of migrant workers in Taiwan had not had a single day off (Hsiao, 2013). Many work long hours in isolated or hazardous environments without legal and social support (Wu, 2006). Exorbitant placement and brokerage fees result in debts that can take as long as a year and a half to pay off (Sheu, 2007). Studies have also investigated exploitative broker and employment practices (Loveband, 2004); unequal wages and benefits (Hsiao, 2013); cultural shock and homesickness (Chen et al., 2011); occupational hazards (Liao, 2011); limited citizenship rights and social participation (Sassen, 2002); discrimination and racism (Lan, 2003); emotional, physical, and sexual abuse (Pan & Yang, 2012); and lack of social service provisions (Lai, 2012). Partly because of these problems, many migrants become undocumented, runaway workers (Lan, 2006). Even though research has studied migrant workers’ psychosocial experiences and analyzed the systemic aspects of migration, less articulated are the resources and strategies used by migrants to mitigate or overcome their environmental stressors (Wong & Song, 2008). Some studies have considered the coping strategies of migrant workers, yet the samples comprised domestic workers. The purpose of this study is to explore the main concern of Filipino factory workers and how they resolve that concern. Gaining knowledge about the resources used by migrant factory workers has direct implications for policy and practice that would contribute to their well-being. Specifically, this study uses the classic grounded theory approach to address the following research questions (Glaser, 1978): What main concern emerges from Filipino factory workers’ migration experiences? How do Filipino factory workers continually resolve this main concern? Methodology Classic Grounded Theory Approach Classic grounded theory was used to generate a theory about Filipino factory workers’ main concern and its resolution. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews that, consistent with the aims of grounded theory, permitted entry into the perspectives of the interviewees in their own terms. The aim of grounded theory is to discover the main concern...

Theory of Flowing: Going with the Flow of the Ups-and-Downs of Recovering from an Ordeal...

Alan Kim-Lok Oh, MCounsPsy, KB, PA Abstract This article outlines the theory of flowing. Flowing is an intervention strategy that ordinary people implement in order to go with the flow of the ups-and-downs of recovering from an ordeal. It ensures that they continue to progress in recovering from their ordeal. Ordinary people experience ups-and-downs when they are recovering from their ordeal in the following domains: functioning, symptoms, energy, support, connection and progress in recovery. These ups-and-downs lead the person to perpetually struggle with uncertainty and feel increasingly insecure and distressed.  Recovering from an ordeal is a process of getting better where the distressing ups-and-downs are gradually stabilized where the person intervenes the downward trends of regression, rises up and maintains their upward trends of recovery; and the ordeal is progressively resolved. Flowing consists of the following intervention strategies: recognizing the ordeal and associated symptoms; alleviating symptoms; activating and nourishing; self-caring; staying open and aware of progress; seeking caring support and connections; becoming a caring support and connection; and staying grateful. This mid-range theory of flowing was discovered by conceptualizing data that were sourced from people who are experiencing the ups-and-downs of recovering from ordeals that are triggered by COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease). Thus, this data represents a slice of data from a broader population of ordinary people who are experiencing the ups-and-downs of recovering from their ordeal. This study has implications in how data could be used to discover theories, coaching of people to overcome their ordeals in life and how to manage life and health as we approach COVID-19 endemicity. Keywords: flowing, intervention strategy, recovery, grounded theory, overcoming ordeals Introduction Ups and downs in recovering from an ordeal in life are common among ordinary people. For example, COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease) that no one can escape from had triggered many ordeals in people’s lives. No one in this world had not been affected by COVID-19 and its effects. As a result, many people in the world are recovering from their ordeal due to COVID-19 and its effects. The ordeal has deeply changed who they are in their respective lives.  The fluctuation that a person experiences when recovering from their ordeal shows that they go through a stream of events which come in a wave of gains and losses that affects their day-to-day responsibilities and functions at work, home etc. This makes recovering from the ordeal hard to bear because the person needs to undergo transiency in their life because impermanency is a phenomenon that many people could not tolerate as they could not bear losing what they have had previously, and having regained them, they lose them again. The ordeal that a person experiences is marked by this impermanency. The purpose of this study is to examine the ups-and-downs of ordinary people when they recover from their ordeal in life by using data from personal stories of people who are recovering from ordeals triggered by COVID-19. As no one in this world had not experienced recovery from their ordeal caused by COVID-19 and its effects before, this data represents a slice of data from a broader population of ordinary people who are recovering from their ordeal. This data were used to discover a mid-range theory of flowing. This mid-range theory hypothesizes the ups-and-downs of ordinary people who are recovering from an ordeal and how they are resolved. Methodology The classic grounded theory methodology is used to discover a theory from data of personal stories of recovering COVID-19 patients collected from...

Getting On-The-Same-Page

Ali J. M. Sumner, Cert Grad Mngt, MBL, PhD Abstract Work teams are intrinsic to how 21st century organizations operate. For several decades, business research has therefore focused on work team performance. De Bono thinking tools have also been used extensively by work teams, for several decades. However, there is a paucity of research on the correct use of de Bono thinking tools in business organizations. The getting on-the-same-page classic grounded theory is therefore a new theory explaining what happens when work teams utilize these tools. The research problem was the main concern of people using de Bono thinking tools in this substantive area. The study revealed their concern is resolved with a three-stage process of change in personal cognitive capability. This process is fragile and can cease at any time. When it continues however, there are three stages of emergent change: tooling-up, tensing and enabling. Discovery of this process contributes to work team theory and praxis, particularly in the area of work team processes and effectiveness. Keywords: classic grounded theory, de Bono thinking tools, work teams, business organizations, cognitive capability. Introduction With an estimated 25 million meetings each day in the USA alone, work team meetings have become ubiquitous in 21st century business organizations (Allen et al., 2015; Beneshick & Lazzarra, 2019). Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with online video services, workplace meetings have also become more pervasive (Carroll & Conboy, 2020; Soni, 2020). By April 2020, over 300 million people worldwide were holding regular work-related meetings via the Zoom on-line meeting platform (Wiederhold, 2020). Work team research identifies meetings, discussions and conversations as “work team occasions.” These occasions have become a major feature of business operations, therefore interest in work teams has significantly increased, with research paying particular attention to improving work team performance (Kozlowski, 2018; Tannenbaum & Salas, 2020). Every year since the mid-1990s thousands of adults, worldwide, have been trained in the correct use of de Bono thinking tools in a work team context (D’Angelo Fisher, 2006; Dudgeon, 2001; Walter, 2017). While there is a significant number of anecdotal claims about the positive impact de Bono thinking tools have on work team performance, in contrast to extensive research in the area of work teams per se, there is a paucity of rigorous research focusing on work teams using these particular thinking tools (Burgh, 2014; D’Angelo Fisher, 2006; Hartnett, 2016; Merrotsy, 2017; Puccio & Cabra, 2010). Getting on-the-same-page is therefore a new theory helping to address a significant gap in knowledge regarding, work team performance. De Bono Thinking Tools With a background in physiology and medicine, Dr. Edward de Bono was researching and teaching at Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Harvard Universities in the early-1960s, when he started focusing on the need for new thinking, to counteract what he considered to be inefficiencies in how the human brain processes information (D’Angelo Fisher, 2006; Dudgeon, 2001). After the publication of The Use of Lateral Thinking in 1967 and an ongoing invention of a raft of new thinking tools, Dr. de Bono is now widely acknowledged as the inventor of the term and tools of lateral thinking, designer of the CoRT program for the teaching of thinking in schools and inventor of the Six Thinking Hats, a methodology that has proliferated though educational systems and business organizations across the world since the mid-1980s (D’Angelo Fisher, 2006; Dingli, 2009; Merrotsy, 2017; Puccio et al., 2010; Walter, 2017). Correct Utilization of de Bono Thinking Tools The term...

The Behavioural Motivations of Police Officers Engaged in Domestic Abuse Incident Work...

Daniel P. Ash, University of Gloucestershire Abstract This paper explores domestic abuse police work by considering the behavioural motivations of officers. It is underpinned by a study using classic grounded theory to examine how officers behave when carrying out police incident work in England. This study identifies that the motivating driver of officers engaged in domestic abuse incident work viz. their main concern, is the continual management of threats to their social identity. Officers seek to understand whether a particular incident’s circumstances provide them with an opportunity to behave like an archetypal British police officer. Upholding archetypal identity is their main concern, and officers resolve their main concern by balancing value and effort (the core-category in this study). The main concern and core category, as a theoretical framework, provide a grounded theory through which officer interactions can be understood as a continuum of behaviours, conceptualised as identity retreat and identity deconstruction. Officers alternate between these behaviour types when seeking to uphold their archetypal identity as they manage incident outcomes. This study has implications for police practitioners and policymakers seeking to understand the motivation of officers when engaged in domestic abuse work and its impact on incident outcomes and officer behaviours. Keywords: classic grounded theory, police officers, domestic abuse, archetypal identity Introduction Domestic abuse is increasingly being recognised by policymakers as a serious, pervasive, and significant issue that “ruins lives, breaks up families and has a lasting impact [on communities]” (Starmer, 2011). In England and Wales, the UK Government defines domestic abuse as “any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members. . .” (Home Office, 2018). The police have primacy when intervening in domestic abuse incidents. Hence, their ability to effectively tackle domestic abuse has come to the fore in the past decade with policymakers reporting that “[t]he overall police response to victims of domestic abuse is not good enough” (HMIC, 2014, p. 6). In more recent years, this landmark assessment by HMIC has created an “impetus for dramatic changes in the policy structures and recommended practices of police officers” (Robinson et al., 2018, p. 189). Yet, despite changes to police practice, the way that individual police officers carry out incident work continues to be problematic for many police forces, victims and families because officers can sometimes conduct incident work outside of policy requirements or in ways that are not, ostensibly, victim-focussed (HMIC, 2015, 2017; Myhill, 2019), and there is a lack of theoretically developed work that can satisfactorily explain this problem. Officer behaviour can affect incident outcomes (Huff, 2021) and social context has a significant impact on officer behaviour and interactions (Shjarback et al., 2018). Therefore, uncovering mechanisms that link social context to behaviours is an important part of understanding incident work. During interactions, officers have significant discretion in the ways that they interact with members of the public. They can often behave in ways that fall outside of policy, legal and organisational expectations (Reiner, 2010), and their decision making can be affected by biases (Nowacki, 2011). The concept of “police culture” has been offered as one theoretical explanation for these often-biased discretionary practices of police officers (Cockcroft, 2012). However, there is little agreement among scholars as to which conceptual practice, or behavioural or social context factors should be incorporated within any model of police culture (Paoline, 2003). One of the problems with police culture models...